Main menu

Post navigation

Science Journal’s Religious Implications and Impact

A couple of months back, Nature Immunology goes outside the realm of science in it’s review on how open Francis Collins is about his belief in God. The editor writes…

“The openly religious stance of the NIH director [Francis Collins] could have undesirable effects on science education in the United States. … In the introduction and in interviews surrounding [Collins’] book release, he describes his belief in a non-natural, non-measurable, improvable deity that created the universe and its laws with humans as the ultimate aim of its creation. Some might worry that describing scientists as workers toiling to understand the laws and intricacies of this divine creation will create opportunities for creationism adepts.”

It goes on attacking Christianity and religion by writing…

“Strikingly, despite being a world leader in science, the United States still struggles when it comes to scientific education. Creationism is creeping back into the science curricula of public schools. And although intelligent design, the latest form of creationism, suffered a major defeat in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial (Nat. Immunol. 7, 433–435, 2006), when the US Supreme Court ruled that including it in science curricula is unconstitutional, creationists are making a comeback.”

This is the Bible of Darwinian evolution for militants in which they attack a person’s character then use misleading statements. First of all, they believe going with the odds. The scientist who believes casually in religion (not devoted) or none at all are most likely going to stay in the fold and the odds remain stacked. Secondly, there are major fundamental differences between the modern intelligent design movement and creationism. Thirdly, the writers at Nature Immunology are fully aware that it wasn’t the U.S Supreme Court who ruled in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case! Rather, the editors of Nature Immunology inserted that on purpose in order to try and overwhelm it’s opposition and have their followers invoke the same concept when defending Darwinian evolution.

This is not all, the piece also attacks recent standards in science that was passed by two states…

“In 2008, Louisiana state legislators passed bills that allow ‘open and objective discussions of scientific theories being studied, including but not limited to evolution and the origins of life.'”

“In 2009, the Texas Board of Education set new standards for incorporating ideas from intelligent- design literature, including doubts that the fossil records represent convincing evidence of evolution. Under the guise of promoting ‘critical thinking skills’, such decisions allow creationists to teach the controversy–a strategy designed to discredit evolution and introduce intelligent design as a viable alternative. Opponents of these bills justly point out that such discussions belong in religion, culture and philosophy classes but not in the science curricula.”

Remember how this piece claimed the U.S Supreme Court ruled against intelligent design back in 2005? If the editors actually meant what they wrote, there would be a calling for lawsuits because according to them, ID material in the public schools was rendered unconstitutional by the U.S Supreme Court in 2005. Another indication it wasn’t just an error but a lie!

“Argument and debate are common in science, yet they are virtually absent from science education. Recent research shows, however, that opportunities for students to engage in collaborative discourse and argumentation offer a means of enhancing student conceptual understanding and students’ skills and capabilities with scientific reasoning.

As one of the hallmarks of the scientist is critical, rational skepticism, the lack of opportunities to develop the ability to reason and argue scientifically would appear to be a significant weakness in contemporary educational practice. In short, knowing what is wrong matters as much as knowing what is right. This paper presents a summary of the main features of this body of research and discusses its implications for the teaching and learning of science.”

Writers at Nature Immunology have demonstrated with it’s religious intentions without the morality, they are not interested in teaching good science rather they want indoctrination and keep students and scientists in line with Darwinian evolution by using lies!

30 thoughts on “Science Journal’s Religious Implications and Impact”

“If the editors actually meant what they wrote, there would be a calling for lawsuits because according to them, ID material in the public schools was rendered unconstitutional by the U.S Supreme Court in 2005.”

You just have to read carefully.

You quoted: “In 2009, the Texas Board of Education set new standards for incorporating ideas from intelligent- design literature, including doubts that the fossil records represent convincing evidence of evolution.”

The key words here are “incorporating ideas from”. The article isn’t saying that the new Texas standards are teaching intelligent design in schools, only that the standards are incorporating ideas from intelligent design. There is a subtle but important difference. It’s just like how Intelligent Design was able to even try to make a case for not just being creationism, which was already not allowed in school science curricula. Intelligent Design incorporates ideas from creationism while attempting to distance itself from those aspects of creationism which are obviously in violation of the wall of separation of church and state which bars religious subjects from the science classroom. Thus, in like fashion, the Texas school board has passed a standard which attempts to undermine decent science education for religious reasons using ideas from Intelligent Design but attempting to avoid the aspects which the supreme court would find obviously objectionable.

The issue is not about indoctrination over teaching good science. It would be one thing if students were being taught good reasoning skills before being challenged to attack or defend a given body of work, it would even be worthwhile without a firm foundation in reasoning skills if the problems or objections being raised were instructive. However assertions that the fossil record doesn’t provide adequate evidence of evolution are ludicrous. The fallacy in such reasoning is twofold. One it’s a red herring. The idea is to create the impression that the most significant body of evidence for evolution is the fossil record, and that disproving the specific history of the evolution of life on earth as recorded in the fossil record would disprove the mechanisms of evolution itself. That we find any fossils which demonstrate transitional features in the morphology at all is confirmation of a prediction of the theory of evolution. Paleontologists don’t search for fossils to prove that evolution happens, they look for fossils to discover how it happened specifically in the history of earth. The other fallacy present here is that the doubts prey on the ignorance of the students, and goes a long way toward trying to maintain that ignorance. The ignorance is of what the theory of evolution actually specifically states. It would be one thing to challenge students to argue for or against the degree to which the available fossil evidence confirms the prediction made by Darwin that we should find, within the fossil record, transitions in morphological features (those features which would have been visible in the skeleton). It’s quite another, and quite incorrect, to challenge students to argue for or against whether or not the available fossil record provides convincing evidence of evolution. Whether it provides convincing evidence of the specific evolutionary history of modern species is one thing, but it has little at all to do with the theory of evolution upon which the study of the fossil record is based.

This is the Bible of Darwinian evolution for militants in which they attack a person’s character then use misleading statements.

There is no Bible of Darwinian evolution, for one thing.

Also, it is ironic that you are calling foul on Scientists for “attacking a person’s character” because Creationists attack the character and integrity of scientists. . . . Creationists like Kent Hovind call scientists liars because their results are not consistent with 6 day creationism. Also, when Creationists simply attack scientists for having a “bias” for evolution rather than the “truth,” that is another unwartented attack on the integrity and character of hard working people who know more about what they are talking about than you do.

And you practice the thing you are criticizing scientists of doing when you say,

Writers at Nature Immunology have demonstrated with it’s religious intentions without the morality, they are not interested in teaching good science rather they want indoctrination and keep students and scientists in line with Darwinian evolution by using lies!

Now you are accusing scientists of using lies? You are a hypocrite!!!!! You are doing the exact same thing that you are accusing the other side of doing!!!!

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 5: 3, 5)

Remember how this piece claimed the U.S Supreme Court ruled against intelligent design back in 2005? If the editors actually meant what they wrote, there would be a calling for lawsuits because according to them, ID material in the public schools was rendered unconstitutional by the U.S Supreme Court in 2005. Another indication it wasn’t just an error but a lie!

One wonders where Michael obtains his facts. We have accused Michael of failures in reading comprehension before, but this is a doozy!

Perhaps Michael is thinking of creationism, which was outlawed in the public schools by the US Supreme Court some years earlier.[1]

In any event, we have here yet another example of Michael’s reckless disregard for truth. Why should we credit anything he says, if he can’t even get the simple stuff straight?

============

[1] Edwards v Aguillard, 482US578 (1987). There are a few parallels. In the Aguillard trial, Michael’s hero Dean Kenyon disappeared from his hotel room the night before he was to testify. In Kitzmiller, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski absquatulated when they saw what a shellacking Michael Behe was taking at his deposition. True to ID morals, they left him twisting in the wind—and kept their witness fees.

Should we remind Michael of his lie under “Is A Telescope Probe Observing The Big Bang?” (July 17, where he claimed to “respond differently” to erroneous points(Comment July 17, 2010 at 4:43 pm | #9), then lied about the relevant facts? (See comment July 20, 2010 at 8:39 pm | #16)

You say, “Intelligent Design incorporates ideas from creationism while attempting to distance itself from those aspects of creationism which are obviously in violation of the wall of separation of church and state which bars religious subjects from the science classroom.” Let me tell you something about this “wall” of separation of church and state. For example, in 1783, the United States ratified a peace treaty with Great Britain, the treaty began: “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third…”If you say there is this “Wall” then why is religion mentioned in a government peace treaty? Why was a day of Thanksgiving and prayer passed by the government in 1780, when there was supposed to be a “wall” there? It wasn’t until the 1940s when this “wall” came into existence using 8 words from a letter written by Jefferson to the Baptists. That was their whole case! No, there is no such “wall” as it’s used today that was intended by the found fathers and how the US government conducted itself during those early years prove that!

You also say, “Paleontologists don’t search for fossils to prove that evolution happens”This is true, they assumed it happened (drawing inferences) much like their assigned dating schemes are assumed as well which is why new fossils continue to surprise them because new discoveries falsified their expectations on what they were told and embraced from there. There is much more than just being critical of the fossil record but I gather you believe that is the strongest evidence for evolution! The teaching of evolution in public schools especially on the high school level is being told what to believe rather teaching a particular theory, in this case evolution. The journal of science that I quote in the article points that out…

“Argument and debate are common in science, yet they are virtually absent from science education. Recent research shows, however, that opportunities for students to engage in collaborative discourse and argumentation offer a means of enhancing student conceptual understanding and students’ skills and capabilities with scientific reasoning.”

The idea of critical thinking in science comes from creationism and intelligent design and if it wasn’t for creationists on the school board (like in Texas) it would still remain absent in science education! Yet, even the journal of science admits students need to learn and practice critical thinking.

You also say, “Paleontologists don’t search for fossils to prove that evolution happens”This is true, they assumed it happened (drawing inferences) much like their assigned dating schemes are assumed as well which is why new fossils continue to surprise them because new discoveries falsified their expectations on what they were told and embraced from there.

I challenge you to name one fossil find that falsifies evolution.

. . . .

Thought not. No such find has ever been found. Everything in the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory.

The teaching of evolution in public schools especially on the high school level is being told what to believe rather teaching a particular theory

This is a downright lie. Evolution is not a “belief.” It is a fact, just as gravity and the fact that the earth is round.

The idea of critical thinking in science comes from creationism and intelligent design and if it wasn’t for creationists on the school board (like in Texas) it would still remain absent in science education!

What is critical about ID and Creationism? “God-did-it” is not crittical thought!! Even as a Christian, I still find resorting to that kind of logic downright backrupt, intellectually speaking.

Yet, even the journal of science admits students need to learn and practice critical thinking.

VIII. Paper Review Process
Upon the reception of a paper the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below:
A. Receive and acknowledge to the author the paper’s receipt.
B. Review the paper for possible inclusion into the ARJ review process.

The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very
constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins
debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation
of Scripture? If necessary, refer to: R. E. Walsh, 1986. Biblical hermeneutics and creation. Proceedings
First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 121–127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation
Science Fellowship.

Remark:
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.

Answers in Genesis endorses critical thinking?

How about item #4 above? Any paper acceptte4d by ARJ that even mentions an old-earth or evolutionary theory must also demolish that theory.

Then there is item #6. Not only must an ARJ paper endorse a young-earth theory, it must do so withing the religious framework of a stated form of biblical interpretation.

Then of course, this gem: A paper will be flung overboard if it conflicts with AiG’s “statement of religious faith.”

.

If the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, or any other scientific journal, had requirements even approaching those three, it would be laughed off the Index of Reviewed Publications.

Hey, wait a minute! Answers Research Journal WAS laughed off the Index.

You are into a different topic, this has nothing to do with teaching science or being critical of scientific theories in the public schools rather your arguing something along the lines about evaluations of professional studies. “Answers in Genesis endorses critical thinking?” Yes, they do in fact they endorse teaching evolution alongside creationism, so a teacher can present both sides. If they were not into critical thinking they would only endorse creationism in the schools much like your crowd only endorses Darwinian evolution. Creationist models are not considered Scripture because scientific models can change, the Scriptures do not.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.” -Stephen Jay Gould

Stephen like many evolutionists like yourself need much faith in the fossil record. Animals that appear abrupt in the fossil record confirms creationism and disproves evolution! The fossil record is pretty weak in terms of what your looking for…

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record…” -Stephen Jay Gould

The ones that are considered “transitional forms” are interpreted that way and are highly questionable, a reach to say the least. If evolution was true, out of more than 200 million fossils found so far, there should be more transitional forms in the fossil record than the species itself! Gould knew this problem (the evidence not verifying Darwinian evolution) existed for quite some time so he proposed a rescue theory to explain it.

Stephen like many evolutionists like yourself need much faith in the fossil record. Animals that appear abrupt in the fossil record confirms creationism and disproves evolution!

Michael, there are precursors of animals that do appear in the fossil record. . . . I guess you would think Trilobites appear without precursors, unless I am mistaken. . . Because they do have precursors. . . Provacorina as well as spriggina are precursors of trilobites.

Bilaterian life appears gradually BEFORE the cambrain “explosion,” that is between 40 to 55 million years. This itself disproves the idea that all species and kinds appear “suddenly.”

And Michael, your quote of Stephen Jay Gould is missleading. He did not say that there were no transitional fossils. All he was saying was that it was wrong to say that gradualism should be held to as the only model.

Here is what Stephen Gould explains about what he actualy meant:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. (Link: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)

Notice the last sentence. . . . His own words show you misrepresented what he meant. . . . He isn’t supporting your position in the slightest.

If evolution was true, out of more than 200 million fossils found so far, there should be more transitional forms in the fossil record than the species itself!

Actually, that is not true, and you have just shown your ignorance not only of the fossil record, but also of geological processes.

1. Fossilization is a novelty, even in goos enviorments There are many reasons why a species may never get fossilized. Scavangers may destroy the remains, or strata may crush a fossil to dust. — Also, it should be mentioned that erosion plays a roll in the destruction of fossil animals. . . . Also, several animals live in ecologies that are not favorable to fossilization.

2. 200 million fossils is not even close to the number of species that ever existed. It is estimated that 95% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. That is to say, 200 million doesn’t even come close to giving a complete look of primitive life, and it only goes to show that there are several gaps in the fossil record.

3. The fossil record does prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though we do not have fossil records for every group, we have enough. We have a good picture of the evolution of whales, the horse, the cammel, the elephants. We have growing proof from the fossil record of evolution of birds from dinosaurs, so much that the idea of bird evolution is not just a hypothesis anymore, but rather a hard fact.

We also have a growing fossil record of animal life before the Cambrian “explosion” which shows that the Cambrain fauna had precursors, as mentioned before.

If you are going to claim that the “transitional forms” are questionable, you will have to explain why. . . And to hold any credence in the face of the concensus, you will have to demonstrate your qualifications to show you even know what you are talking about.

But you have avoided what I said. I told you to give one fossil that disproves evolution . . . . You have not done it. You just quote-mined Stephen Gould. . . . Honestly man, the poor man is dead, so have a little respect by not misrepresenting his view.

“Answers in Genesis endorses critical thinking?” Yes, they do in fact they endorse teaching evolution alongside creationism, so a teacher can present both sides. If they were not into critical thinking they would only endorse creationism in the schools much like your crowd only endorses Darwinian evolution.

As to creationists teaching evolution alongside their own fantasy, do you remember why the Institute for Creation Research flunked their accreditation in Texas? The curriculum, Michael, the curriculum. They were NOT teaching anything that a scientist would recognize as evolution.

Have you seen any of the “biology” texts that ID/creationists advocate for public schools and for home schooling? Well, I have.

The Design of Life comes to mind. On its 275 pages, I have emplaced 86 little yellow stickies identifying misrepresentations or outright lies about evolution. So, yes, the book mentions evolution at least 86 times. But it certainly does not “teach evolution.” In addition to the lies, it quotes research that has long sago been superseded as though it were the latest word. Oparin and Haldane are quoted as current stuff. Urey’s experiments are dismissed without so much as a mention of his later results (15 of the 20 amino acids found, not just 3 or 4) that were found initially. A typical lie (p.89)—

“The case for Darwinian evolution would be greatly strengthened if scientists could demonstrate (rather than merely gesture at) a plausible mechanism for producing macroevolution.

…

Take the evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw. How exactly did these two bones from the reptilian jaw ‘migrate’ to the mammalian ear?”

Wha??? This is one of the most well-documented transitions in paleontology. In fact, we know that the transition proceeded back and forth several times, because only a single ligament need move to reconnect the bones.. Neil Shubin devotes an entire chapter to lay out the reconfiguration of this anatomy from the fossil record. One might try looking at the line of fossils on page 163 of Your Inner Fish to see not only this transition, but the entire sequence of fossils from the jawed fish ancestors of reptiles.

As to the power of macroevolution, you might look up a study done with a newly developed tool at the University of Manchester to measure morphological changes in bones. The authors found that the cranial variation produced by breeding dogs over only a few hundred years covers the entire range of carnivores that have evolved over millions of years. So much for evolution not having the power to reshape anatomy.

Other ID/creationists materials are no better. The purported high-school textbook Exploring Evolution is a roundelay of misinformation. The only connection it has with any semblance of evolutionary theory is to lie about it. This book can’t even get geometry correct! One page carries an evolutionary student wearing a dunce cap, to portray evolutionists as, in their word, “obtuse.” Now if they knew any geometry, the authors would have known that a dunce cap forms an acute angle, not an obtuse one. This is typical of the level of accuracy.

So, Michael, when you say that creationists teach evolution “alongside” creationism, this is a bald-faced lie. Sorry, there is no other word for it.

And of course scientists don’t teach creationism. There is no scientific evidence for it. As always, if you think there is, you are more than welcome to point it out. Not handwaving about “complexity,” not gaps in the fossil record, but positive evidence that special creation actually occurred.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.” -Stephen Jay Gould

Stephen like many evolutionists like yourself need much faith in the fossil record. Animals that appear abrupt in the fossil record confirms creationism and disproves evolution! The fossil record is pretty weak in terms of what your looking for…

Once more into the breach! Michael again demonstrates his abysmal ignorance of science.

“Name one fossil find that falsifies evolution”

=> Michael names no fossil find at all. (JBS Haldane once gave an example: Finding a rabbit in a pre-Cambrian bed.)

=> Michael quotes an authority to establish the truth of a matter. Pronouncements of authorities are not evidence.

=> Michael attempts a rhetorical device — Michael reverses the argument, accusing the questioner of the very thing he (Michael) is doing. The rhetorical device here is called “turning the tables,” and is evidence of nothing.

=> Offering what would be at best negative evidence—the lack of a complete fossil record–as positive evidence for another theory. The logical fallacy is non sequitur.

Four ways in which Michael again demonstrates his ignorance of the methods of science. Four ways in answering a single question. Priceless!

The claim that fossils disprove evolution is one I find rather annoying.

— AS for the claim that fossil species show up “all of a sudden with no evolutionary ancestors,” that is a claim I stopped using several months before I accepted Evolution because I knew it was false. . . Interestingly enough, a web-page from ICR gave me the evidence I needed to drop that claim: It was about Arthropod footprints discovered in Precambrian strata in Nevada. The Article from ICR was entitled “Fossil Footprints Trample Evolution’s Timeline,” but after thinking things over, it became apparant to me that this did not falsify evolution at all (despite my Creationist status at the time). If anything, this hurt the Creationist argument about the so-called Cambrian “explosion” that the Cambrian fauna appear “all of a sudden without any possible evolutionary ancestors.” The implications from that are bad for Creationism: If arthropods were present before the Cambrian (aka, before Trilobites), then it is logical to assume they gave rise to some arthropods in the Cambrian. It never crossed ICR’s mind that this potentially falsified a long-held Creationist argument. . . .

I was actually able to dig up a lot if info on Precambrian animals and life forms, and just a little bit is enough to throw a wrench into Creationist claims.

I even wrote a blog post of this on my blog. . . Kinda proud if it too :P

You would think that Trilobites had no precursurs just by reading Creationist books, but they did. I gave two examples to Michael in my last comment above: Parvancorina as well as Spriggina floundersi.

We even have evidence of bilaterian life tens of millions of years before the Cambrian!! China has produced plenty of evidence from the Doushantuo Formation.

— There are other links I could give, but I don’t want my comments to be flagged as spam for giving too many.

After I read up on the fossil finds from the Doushantuo Formation, I watched the film from the Discovery Institute entitled Darwin’s Dilemma, and I noticed they really liked citing fossils from China to support themselves. . . . Then I compared the date to the Scientific papers . . . The papers came out between 2002 and 2005. . . The Discovery Institute made their film in 2009, . . and that begs the question: These discoveries were made in China years before the DI made their film on the Cambrian “explosion.” Since they like Chinese fossils so much, why didn’t they include the fossil finds from that same region that I am citing? It’s not as if they couldn’t have gotten access since they are easily accessable online!!! Either they were ignorant, or they dileberately left them out! You make the call…..

“Four ways in which Michael again demonstrates his ignorance of the methods of science. Four ways in answering a single question. Priceless!”” “…major groups are characteristically abrupt.” He can pick one of those fossils he wants and try to explain why it appears abruptly rather than transitionally in a gradual process…I know you can’t…A genome study which didn’t confirm Darwinian evolution nor what you interpret in the fossil record also destroys his challenge. Only a tiny fraction of genomes show even minimal support for a phylogenetic (evolutionary) tree. At the lower levels, only a mere 12 percent hit the bar while a strong 88 percent did not. At higher levels or orders the scores were even lower. The maximum score was 10 in primates, and 0.0 in 75 other orders. That was quite a disappointment for Darwinian evolution…So add 5 ways which includes genome evidence! lol

He can pick one of those fossils he wants and try to explain why it appears abruptly rather than transitionally in a gradual process…

You seem very reactive to Olorin pointing out your ignorance here, but you can remedy that. . . Look at the evolution of Horseshoe crabs which has gone on since the Cambrian to the present day…, and you’ll see clear transitions. Also, look at the cannartid-ommatartid lineage of radiolaria, and you’ll get the same story. Then the evolution of mammals from Synapsids shows many such transitions from as early as the Early Permian to the Jurasic Period showing that mammals don’t “just appear abruptly.” Even if some species seem to appear abruptly, it is absolutely certain that the lineages of many groups show a clear transition between species that are obviously related, and therefore they do not “just appear” out of nothing. . . . “Sudden appearance” has nothing to do with invalidity of evolution, nothing to do with the validity of creationism, and it has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that fossilization is a rare novelty and doesn’t happen very often. Just because we have not found a perfect fossil record, that in no way gives a basis for rejecting the evidence we do have, not to mention that the geological process are well know to not allow fossilization very often, so any “sudden appearance” really means next to nothing against the fact of evolution.

Only a tiny fraction of genomes show even minimal support for a phylogenetic (evolutionary) tree. At the lower levels, only a mere 12 percent hit the bar while a strong 88 percent did not. At higher levels or orders the scores were even lower. The maximum score was 10 in primates, and 0.0 in 75 other orders. That was quite a disappointment for Darwinian evolution…So add 5 ways which includes genome evidence! lol

Horseshoe crabs? Explain to me what you chose this one in particular? The oldest fossil was found in 2008 in Canada and they were not sure if they were young horseshoe crabs or adults but it pushed back their time line about 100 million years and here is what else they noticed…

“Nearly a half a billion years ago, tiny horseshoe crabs crept along the shorelines much like today’s larger versions do, new fossil evidence suggests.” -Live Science

Here is more…

“This body plan that they’ve invented, they’ve stayed with it for almost a half a billion years. It’s a good plan,” Rudkin told LiveScience. “They’ve survived almost unchanged up until the present day…”

“We wouldn’t necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that’s exactly what they look like,” [David] Rudkin [Royal Ontario Museum] said.”

What research or fossils are telling you of transitional horseshoe crabs?

And last point…

“Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data.”

Horseshoe crabs? Explain to me what you chose this one in particular? The oldest fossil was found in 2008 in Canada and they were not sure if they were young horseshoe crabs or adults but it pushed back their time line about 100 million years and here is what else they noticed…

“Nearly a half a billion years ago, tiny horseshoe crabs crept along the shorelines much like today’s larger versions do, new fossil evidence suggests.” -Live Science

I can use this very easily. . . . And no, they were not around for “only” a hundred million years. . . They were around since the Cambrian, whish started 550 million years ago. . . All you have to do is look at a diagram of horshoe crabs to see the gradiual change (I have one in front of me right now).

And so what if they were lager in the past as LiveScience says? What’s the point of even bringing that up?

You then add this:

Here is more…

“This body plan that they’ve invented, they’ve stayed with it for almost a half a billion years. It’s a good plan,” Rudkin told LiveScience. “They’ve survived almost unchanged up until the present day…”

“We wouldn’t necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that’s exactly what they look like,” [David] Rudkin [Royal Ontario Museum] said.”

This is so funny, because it is wrong! The only thing that remained the same is the basic shape, HOWEVER several features on the ACTUALL body itself HAE CHANGE. Horcesho craps from the Cambrian, the Carboniferious and then the Silurian and Devonian are significantly different, and the differences between them are MACRO!! . . . <b)This makes me wonder if you even looked at a diagram of horsehoe crab evolution!!!!

They show the same basic shape, BUT difference elsewhere that require MACRO-change. So Horshoe crabs are a good example.

And last point…

“Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data.”

Link to experiment conducted on the genome

Nice, except for one thing!! The title of the of the paper clearly says it ONLY applies to the Eukaryotic Tree of Life, which by the way, is not news to anyone since it has alreasy been long suggested that the Eukaryotic were rotted wrong. And they figured that out BY USING GENETICS, so this does nothing.

Before you start crying “foul” of my defense of using horshoe crabs, you have to realize that EVEN THOUGH a basic shape has remained similar since they appeared in geologic time, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT SPECIES OF HORSESHOE CRABS THAT INDICATE MACRO-EVOLUTION!!

I’m linking two pictures of DIFFERENT species of horseshoe crabs. . .

This one is from the Strabops variety:

—

And the second picture is of the xiphosura variety:

—– They are both horseshoe crabs, AND SHOW MANY DIFFERENCES!!!!! All you have to do is compare them and you will see. . . . Basic shape is similar, BUT there are still many differences!!!!!!!

“Four ways in which Michael again demonstrates his ignorance of the methods of science. Four ways in answering a single question. Priceless!”” “…major groups are characteristically abrupt.” He can pick one of those fossils he wants and try to explain why it appears abruptly rather than transitionally in a gradual process…

For the second time, Michael completely misses the point.

Let me once more repeat the original question::

krissmith777 . . . . . . . . July 31, 2010 at 11:53 am | #11

Michael,

I challenge you to name one fossil find that falsifies evolution.

Your response of August 1, 2010 at 7:46 pm | #14 did not name any fossil that falsifies evolution. Instead, it gave a bed full of petrified excuses for not being able to name such a fossil.

This is the shell game that creationists have raised to an art form. When you can’t answer the question, create a diversion. Quote authorities. Pound on the paucity of the fossil record. Charge that evolution is a faith-based theory. Anything, but never admit there is no pea under the shell.

Just answer the question: Name one fossil find that falsifies evolution.

“Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data.”

Link to experiment conducted on the genome…a href=”http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5885/121″>(click here)

The bolded quote above does NOT come from the referenced paper in Science. Michael, you should not lie about something that can be checked so easily. (Yes, I did read the entire paper.)

What is the purpose of the Science paper? To attempt to reconstruct phylogenetic trees for clusters of species by analyzing sequence data from a genetic bank.[1]

What are the conclusions of the paper? (a) For mammals, some other vertebrates, and angiosperms, robust trees could be constructed.[2] (b) For many other eukaryotes, the data in the gene bank is insufficient to construct a tree that is complete.

What does the paper recommend? That a lot more effort be put into analyzing more genetic data, and that the effort should be directed toward analyzing entire genomes of a smaller number of additional species, rather than toward partial genomes for a much larger number of species.

Michael quotes some numbers, but has no clue what they signify—

Michael (#20)

A genome study which didn’t confirm Darwinian evolution nor what you interpret in the fossil record also destroys his challenge.[3] Only a tiny fraction of genomes show even minimal support for a phylogenetic (evolutionary) tree. At the lower levels, only a mere 12 percent hit the bar while a strong 88 percent did not. At higher levels or orders the scores were even lower. The maximum score was 10 in primates, and 0.0 in 75 other orders. That was quite a disappointment for Darwinian evolution…

What does the “12%” number represent? That the authors could construct a complete phylogenetic tree with no conflicts for 12% of the clusters[4] studied. What does the “88%” represent? That at least some data was lacking in 88% of the clusters. A score of “10” indicates that a robust tree can be constructed from the available data. A score of “0.0” indicates that the data that is available so far is insufficient to construct any tree for that cluster. These numbers are certainly not evidence of independent creation—multiple conflicting trees would not have escaped the attention of the authors.[5]

“The finding that the average eukaryotic species or higher taxon in GenBank has a phylogenetic support score of less than 1.0 units (10 times less than the best-supported vertebrate orders) has several implications. An accurate high-resolution phylogeny will require substantial increases in sequence data to bring that score to a level comparable to that of the best-supported higher taxa.”

That is, the most accurate and complete trees can be constructed for those species for which we have the most genomic data; the least complete trees can be constructed for species for which we have little genomic data. There are gaps in the trees that cannot be filled until more data becomes available.

So Michael is merely making the tired old “god of the gaps” argument all over again—but for genetics instead of fossils. You should really spend a few minutes checking out what these papers mean before you wave them about. This is another reason that scientists laugh at creationists.

=================

[1] The sequences in the bank comprise entire sequences ( a few), expressed sequence tags (many), and barcode sequences (a new but growing library). That is, almost all of the 182,000 taxa are represented only by small fragments

[2] Michael may be interested to know that the very best tree of all was for humans.

[3] Destroys the challenge? In what way does it name a fossil find that falsifies evolution? Sorry, this paper has nothing to do with fossils.

The bolded quote above does NOT come from the referenced paper in Science. Michael, you should not lie about something that can be checked so easily. (Yes, I did read the entire paper.)

Thank you for pointing that out, because I was unable to read the paper. All I could find online were introductions. . . .So, I could not make a judgement on it except for the title of the paper itself.

Now lets see how michael deals with THAT fact, as well as the details i give in my two former comments.

While you are answering Olorin’s comments, as well as mine, I want to re-emphesize that I still want an actuall fossil discovery that falsifies evolutionary theory! —

As you were speaking about scientists, you said, and I quote you saying this for the second time:

. . . they assumed it happened (drawing inferences) much like their assigned dating schemes are assumed as well which is why new fossils continue to surprise them because new discoveries falsified their expectations on what they were told and embraced from there.

I’m going to emphesize that you used the words “new discoveries falsified their expectations. . .”, as you were speaking on fossils. . . .

So, Michael, I want an actual example of a new fossil discovery (or an old one, it doesn’t matter the age) that falsifies evolution. . . . And no quote mining the poor, late Stephen Gould since I have already shown that he didn’t have the meaning you implied he did. And also none of the false claims that “fossil animals appear abruptly,” since that has been explained away easily adequately.

I want you to name an actual fossil!!! — Do not use rehtoric. I will not let this go until you do, and THEN we’ll see if your example holds weight.

Here’s what yoy have to do:

1) Name an actual fossil as an example.
2) Elaborate as to why and how it falsifies evolution.
3) If I give a rebuttal, you will have to explain WHY you do not accept my reasoning.

This is not unreasonable, Michael!!!! — Since you feel confident enough to claim fossil evidence disproves evlutionary theory, none of this should be too complicated for you.

On the paper that Michael misquoted to prove his point about, you say,

The bolded quote above does NOT come from the referenced paper in Science. Michael, you should not lie about something that can be checked so easily. (Yes, I did read the entire paper.)

What is the purpose of the Science paper? To attempt to reconstruct phylogenetic trees for clusters of species by analyzing sequence data from a genetic bank.[1]

I did some looking into science papers, and found out that Michael missapplied the quote. The quote came from a DIFFERENT source than the paper he claimed to have cited.

Interestingly enough, the paper that the quote REALLY comes from (entitled “Exceptional Convergent Evolution in a Virus,”) can actually be made to hurt Michaels idea.

He uses it to claim that the phylogenetic tree has only minimal support. . . The tittle of the paper actually says it all. It is about “CONVERGENT EVOLUTION!!!!” — I guess Michael doesn’t know what CONVERGENT EVOLUTION is. — I’ll explain it for Michael’s sake: It is when unrelated living forms, and creatures evolve similar to identical organs, of features independentely of eachother.

This seems to be a case of Michael not understanding what he was reading. . , but then tt seems pretty obvious to me that Michael didn’t read this paper, which I am linking right below:

Thanx for the source, Kris. I’m sitting here waiting for a new terabyte hard drive to format—ho hum.

Michael has been dumpster-diving in the literature again. If he just were not so ignorant, he might be able to deceive more people. Jonathon Wells, now… He is dangerous; one must go deep into his arguments to find the falsehoods.

The thing is, Michael, you can hang onto your religious beliefs But when they cause you to foster lies about science—then we get upset. As citizens, we get upset because science is important to our country and our way of life. As science aficionados, we get upset because you try to destroy a thing of beauty and sa valuable tool. As Christians, we get upset because you turn God into a cheap stage magician that atheists can laugh at.

The paper that the quote comes from basically says that (a) you can’t construct a phylo tree of convergent species, because they’re not related, and (b) convergent evolution may be more widespread than previously thought. So this article removes possible conflicting evolutionary trees that might otherwise be taken as evidence of separate creation. Too bad, Michael.

I am currently halfway through Kirschner & Gerhart’s The Plausibility of Life (Yale, 2005). In their exposition of “facilitated variation,” they use a couple examples of convergent evolution. One interesting example concerns hemoglobin. In its 450My history, this molecule has changed often to adapt to various conditions, yet retained its core function. The bar-headed goose can fly over Mt Everest because of a single nucleotide change that changes the proportions of its two stable states with different O2 levels. Primates change the stable states in fetal hemoglobin with a different small change—to let the fetus rob oxygen from its mother. Other mammals use yet another small change—which uses a different chemical to switch the states. The llama’s adaptation to high altitudes has another small mod, using yet another signal molecule. (The authors’ point with this example is to show conservation of core processes over long time periods, with many diverse accommodations along the way.)

Huh. The drive is still only 34% formatted. Another area of core conservation with diverse accommodations involves sex determination, which uses the same SF-1 gene for determination, but by mechanisms as different as temperature, social status, and XY/WZ chromoso—but I’m beginning to bore you, and to annoy Michael.